Among the many issues affecting IACUCs, one that continually raises its head is the need for a sufficient number of qualified persons to carry out protocol reviews. To help alleviate this need, both the federal Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) and the USDA's Animal Care division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/AC) permit the use of alternate members on an IACUC. As might be expected, the use of alternate members has led to its own problems, as seen in this case report from Great Eastern University.

It was summertime, and the Great Eastern University IACUC knew it would not have sufficient members to have full committee meetings. Therefore, it was decided that for July and August, all protocols would undergo designated-member reviews only. That way, there would not be a routine need for a quorum of members to vote on a protocol. This idea worked well for the first few protocols, but as summer vacations continued to deplete the ranks of IACUC members, it became difficult to obtain a sufficient number of designated-member reviewers. It was not that there were no more IACUC members at work; rather, the issue was whether the few remaining members could be expected to shoulder the burden of all of the reviews. Larry Covelli, the IACUC chairman, identified an easy solution: just use the alternate members of the committee. Covelli said, “An alternate member can fill in for an IACUC member who is unavailable, as long as the alternate is that person's specific replacement. Problem resolved! We have at least two specifically designated alternates for every scientist on the IACUC, so we'll just let the alternates do the designated-member reviews for the regular member scientists who are on vacation.”

“Well, maybe yes, maybe no, Larry,” said Ann Nixon, the IACUC coordinator at Great Eastern. “You're the boss, but I'm pretty sure that this whole thing with alternate members has to do with alternates for full committee meetings, not designated-member reviews. The problem isn't that we don't have enough regular members available who can do designated-member reviews; it's just that they're busy, so you want some extra people to help with the work load. I don't think you can do that.”

“I'm sure I can,” Covelli replied. “Where is it written that we can't do what I said?”

“Where is anything written about alternate members?” said Nixon. “The only information about them is in the form of notices and published articles. We constantly have these questions coming up.”

“That's true,” said Covelli, “but until we hear otherwise, let's just do it my way.”

What do you think? Can an IACUC use its alternate members for designated-member reviews while regular members are still available to carry out those reviews? On what documentation do you base your opinion?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: What about full committee reviews?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Regulations trump convenience

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA